It just shows a lack of empathy towards other living beings is the way I see it.
What’s the moral basis of your ethical argument? Is it simply that all living beings deserve to live, or is it about preventing harm/pain?
The question is pretty simple when it’s asked about something like a mammal, but less so when you ask about something like a krill. Why does a krill have the same ethical weight as a mammal, and why wouldn’t that same moral imperative be applied to something like a mushroom?
Both are living beings, to our best knowledge both krill and mushrooms lack the ability to sensate pain as we understand it. Both can respond to stimuli in a way that tries to negate bodily harm.
I don’t eat meat because of my own beliefs, but I often see vegans propose that veganism isnt based on a belief system, rather that it’s logically conclusive. There are just too many internal contradictions for that to be true.
For example, as someone who grew up on farms… I think everyone would be surprised to know how many animals are killed collecting something like corn. I’ve spent more time than I would like clearing thousands of dead frogs from screens of combine harvesters. In my experience if every life is ethically similar, than something like hunting causes a lot less harm than harvesting an acre of corn or wheat.
To add to what the other two commenters mentioned, it’s about intent too. Crop deaths are a thing, sure, but it’s the next best to actually outright killing animals and harvesting their flesh. The animals that die in crop fields die regardless given that the corn harvested - and then some - to feed other animals which you end up consuming. Thus, it’s fewer animals dying overall.
To add to what the other two commenters mentioned, it’s about intent too.
I don’t actually think intent is really important to the moral equation. A species going extinct because of over hunting, and a species going extinct because of habitat destruction are pretty morally equivalent to me.
The animals that die in crop fields die regardless given that the corn harvested
Is that not the same reasoning people use to validate hunting?
then some - to feed other animals which you end up consuming. Thus, it’s fewer animals dying overall.
This is getting closer to the ethical imperative question I asked. So it seems that the ethical dilemma is based on preserving as much life as possible?
If so, would it be more ethical to eat the insect as a protein source rather than the soy beans they are feeding upon? If the insects as you say are going to be destroyed during the harvest, would it not be morally justified to gather and eat the insects before or after?
My point isn’t to be pedantic or actually implement anything we’ve talked about. I’m just pointing out the internal contradictions that occur in veganism. Not to try and sway anyone’s life choices, but to allow for people to understand that it’s logically imperfect, and to not let perfection be the enemy of good.
The point I was trying to make about crop deaths is not that corn gets harvested either way and that makes it okay but rather that eating farm animals brings a lot more crop deaths considering the huge amount of feed that needs to be harvested for them compared to just eating the crops themselves. Additionally, if we converted ca. 80% of all farmland that is currently being used just for animal agriculture - feed as well as the animals themselves (look up the exact figures on the Vegan Society sources page) - into farmland for plants to consume directly and reforestation, we would bring back a lot of habitats.
I know it seems like I’m getting off track here, but the point I’m trying to make is that while the ethics of veganism are a personal thing and offer about as much discussion potential as any big philosophical question, I think, considering the state of the world, there has got to be a little utilitarianism involved because that is what veganism is essentially: the effort to cause the least harm to animals that is possible.
That doesn’t mean that frogs are worth less than pigs it just means that if by not eating pigs I save the pig and the frogs whereas by not eating corn I only save the frogs, then eating the corn is the way that I cause the least harm possible. Therefore, I think it’s important that veganism evolves with our options.
There’s also an argument to be made that climate change kills countless animals and increases their risk of going extinct, following which veganism, by being less environmentally taxing, is also saving or attempting to save lives in that regard.
Ultimately, it comes down to how I can reduce the harm I’m causing to the animals in this world. If I had no choice but to hunt, then I would be just like a lion and that would just be nature, but I have choice, so I’m attempting to come as close to the lion as possible in a way that I only cause the minimum of harm I absolutely need to survive. The lion kills to survive but not any more than that - he doesn’t breed animals and eat them. I eat plants to survive because that’s the least harmful choice of eating/living I can conceive of at this moment.
Accepting for the sake of discussion (but not generally) that hunting is “ethical”, hunting is also a privilege. We obviously cannot all eat hunted meat for survival. You’ve no doubt seen the figures. There are barely enough animals to support tourism and retroprimitivism. It’s not a real solution, it’s just something you can use to trick yourself. The lies we tell ourselves are not convincing to others.
Accepting for the sake of discussion (but not generally) that hunting is “ethical”, hunting is also a privilege. We obviously cannot all eat hunted meat for survival. You’ve no doubt seen the figures.
The sheer variety of produce we currently experience is also an unsustainable privilege.
Eating something with palm oil is also a privilege, one that destroys natural habitats and leads to excess carbon being released to the atmosphere.
I’m not trying to equivocate the two, but the moral justification is similar.
Here’s our belief system: don’t kill or hurt animals as much as is possible.
We don’t need to theologize and systematize our ideology because it’s a movement with very little requirement to be part of.
There are whole foods plant based people, there are vegans who eat fun junk food (that’s not a judgment statement BTW). There are people from all over life who woke up one day and thought about their life choices. There really are not many other requirements than don’t exploit animals or consume them or their products.
What’s the moral basis of your ethical argument? Is it simply that all living beings deserve to live, or is it about preventing harm/pain?
The question is pretty simple when it’s asked about something like a mammal, but less so when you ask about something like a krill. Why does a krill have the same ethical weight as a mammal, and why wouldn’t that same moral imperative be applied to something like a mushroom?
Both are living beings, to our best knowledge both krill and mushrooms lack the ability to sensate pain as we understand it. Both can respond to stimuli in a way that tries to negate bodily harm.
I don’t eat meat because of my own beliefs, but I often see vegans propose that veganism isnt based on a belief system, rather that it’s logically conclusive. There are just too many internal contradictions for that to be true.
For example, as someone who grew up on farms… I think everyone would be surprised to know how many animals are killed collecting something like corn. I’ve spent more time than I would like clearing thousands of dead frogs from screens of combine harvesters. In my experience if every life is ethically similar, than something like hunting causes a lot less harm than harvesting an acre of corn or wheat.
To add to what the other two commenters mentioned, it’s about intent too. Crop deaths are a thing, sure, but it’s the next best to actually outright killing animals and harvesting their flesh. The animals that die in crop fields die regardless given that the corn harvested - and then some - to feed other animals which you end up consuming. Thus, it’s fewer animals dying overall.
I don’t actually think intent is really important to the moral equation. A species going extinct because of over hunting, and a species going extinct because of habitat destruction are pretty morally equivalent to me.
Is that not the same reasoning people use to validate hunting?
This is getting closer to the ethical imperative question I asked. So it seems that the ethical dilemma is based on preserving as much life as possible?
If so, would it be more ethical to eat the insect as a protein source rather than the soy beans they are feeding upon? If the insects as you say are going to be destroyed during the harvest, would it not be morally justified to gather and eat the insects before or after?
My point isn’t to be pedantic or actually implement anything we’ve talked about. I’m just pointing out the internal contradictions that occur in veganism. Not to try and sway anyone’s life choices, but to allow for people to understand that it’s logically imperfect, and to not let perfection be the enemy of good.
The point I was trying to make about crop deaths is not that corn gets harvested either way and that makes it okay but rather that eating farm animals brings a lot more crop deaths considering the huge amount of feed that needs to be harvested for them compared to just eating the crops themselves. Additionally, if we converted ca. 80% of all farmland that is currently being used just for animal agriculture - feed as well as the animals themselves (look up the exact figures on the Vegan Society sources page) - into farmland for plants to consume directly and reforestation, we would bring back a lot of habitats.
I know it seems like I’m getting off track here, but the point I’m trying to make is that while the ethics of veganism are a personal thing and offer about as much discussion potential as any big philosophical question, I think, considering the state of the world, there has got to be a little utilitarianism involved because that is what veganism is essentially: the effort to cause the least harm to animals that is possible.
That doesn’t mean that frogs are worth less than pigs it just means that if by not eating pigs I save the pig and the frogs whereas by not eating corn I only save the frogs, then eating the corn is the way that I cause the least harm possible. Therefore, I think it’s important that veganism evolves with our options.
There’s also an argument to be made that climate change kills countless animals and increases their risk of going extinct, following which veganism, by being less environmentally taxing, is also saving or attempting to save lives in that regard.
Ultimately, it comes down to how I can reduce the harm I’m causing to the animals in this world. If I had no choice but to hunt, then I would be just like a lion and that would just be nature, but I have choice, so I’m attempting to come as close to the lion as possible in a way that I only cause the minimum of harm I absolutely need to survive. The lion kills to survive but not any more than that - he doesn’t breed animals and eat them. I eat plants to survive because that’s the least harmful choice of eating/living I can conceive of at this moment.
Accepting for the sake of discussion (but not generally) that hunting is “ethical”, hunting is also a privilege. We obviously cannot all eat hunted meat for survival. You’ve no doubt seen the figures. There are barely enough animals to support tourism and retroprimitivism. It’s not a real solution, it’s just something you can use to trick yourself. The lies we tell ourselves are not convincing to others.
The sheer variety of produce we currently experience is also an unsustainable privilege.
Eating something with palm oil is also a privilege, one that destroys natural habitats and leads to excess carbon being released to the atmosphere.
I’m not trying to equivocate the two, but the moral justification is similar.
Here’s our belief system: don’t kill or hurt animals as much as is possible.
We don’t need to theologize and systematize our ideology because it’s a movement with very little requirement to be part of.
There are whole foods plant based people, there are vegans who eat fun junk food (that’s not a judgment statement BTW). There are people from all over life who woke up one day and thought about their life choices. There really are not many other requirements than don’t exploit animals or consume them or their products.
Right, but by what is the ethical delineation between say a krill and a mushroom?
What is the difference between lesser evolved animals and highly evolved plants or microbes?